Page 20 |
BetterHuman.org Weblog |
Welcome to the BetterHuman.org Weblog. Please read this very important excerpt from my book, Meme, as it also applies to the contents of this weblog. If you'd like to be notified of weblog updates, or wish to contact us directly with compliments, criticisms, or especially corrections, please visit our Contact Us page, where you'll also see a list of frequently-asked questions. If you are looking for specific keywords in this weblog, be sure to use your browser's 'find' function. Also, I'll apologize in advance if some weblog entries seem abrupt, but in the interest of conciseness I've often been forced to remove large portions of submitter's emails, and this will occasionally make my response appear inordinately potent.
© BetterHuman.org.
No part of this writing may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the express written
permission of BetterHuman.org. All submitted emails become the sole property of BetterHuman.org. All submitter names are altered in order to protect identities.
Topics on this page:
#278 - Climbing out of the box - Jun 08, 2007, 10:17 AM
#279 - Theory of Misevolution? - Jun 08, 2007, 10:21 AM
#280 - Lots of love... - Jun 08, 2007, 10:28 AM
#281 - Proof of god? - Jun 08, 2007, 10:31 AM
#282 - Following words of wisdom - Jun 08, 2007, 10:37 AM
#283 - Kudos - Jun 08, 2007, 10:39 AM
#284 - Absurdities - Jun 08, 2007, 10:42 AM
#285 - Where do we attach the horse? - Jun 08, 2007, 10:44 AM
#286 - Powerless prayer - Jun 08, 2007, 10:51 AM
#287 - Uncreated - Jun 08, 2007, 10:53 AM
#288 - God versus evolution - Jun 08, 2007, 10:55 AM
#289 - Separating God from religion - Jul 22, 2007, 12:54 PM
#290 - When will physics fall apart? - Jul 22, 2007, 12:57 PM
#291 - To be a humanist - Jul 22, 2007, 01:06 PM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#277 - Assault of inaction - April 03, 2007, 08:08 PM |
Ms. Canegive's mother wrote back:
> perhaps you are a counsellor and this is an attempt at PR.
No madam, I'm trying to help you help your daughter. Again, you're losing sight of what's really important here. Please, forget about me, I'm not important.
> I am not stopping my daughter getting anything she needs and in fact when she was troubled it was I who offerred her just such help
Forgive me, but you must realize how your influence may be part of her issues. From what information you've afforded me, I've ascertained that you are unable to confront challenging situations and instead choose to hide from them behind your mythology. This is exactly as effective as asking Santa Claus for protection. Some professional help from outside might grant you and your daughter the insight necessary to get to the root of her problems.
I know you believe you are past the worst of it with your daughter, but the simple fact that she reached out to me and immediately told me her stories of self-mutilation is without a doubt her need to reach out to someone for help and understanding, AND that she is still actively thinking about her problems. She is 'not' better, so please put your very selfish 'denial' aside, and get her some help. Don't do it because I told you to, do it because you love your daughter.
> - and guess what there are Christian psychologists and psychiatrists too!!!!
Then take your daughter to see one of them (assuming they are certified professionals).
> I am not competing with you but the love of God in me forces me to reach out to the lost. Those whose belief that we are somehow spinning on an axis on a giant ball in space and just happened to defy the law of entropy and evolve not one but countless incredible amazing creatures and we just all happen to know that hurting ourselves is wrong - figure that...in your godless world
BetterHuman.org, and my book Meme, have an extensively defined perspective of the world that explains a great deal, without a need for a god. It would greatly benefit you to educate yourself with this material.
> why does it matter if she does harm herself - in your world that must be a neutral action as there is no right and wrong
Incorrect. In fact, at this time, I would venture that I actually care 'more' about your daughter's well-being than you do, based upon your willingness to overlook her suffering in your selfish (yes selfish) resignation to let 'fate' take its course. You have it within your power to protect her, and yet you naively repress her needs and channel her into worship of mythological creatures. That poor child; how much she must suffer in your confusing labyrinth of a fantasy perspective. What a tragedy.
> You seem to wish her to be unwell
Madam, you are an extremely confused person. I wish you would grant me the ability to reply to your daughter directly so I could tell her that I love her as a fellow human being, and that she has a friend she could talk to, like she was trying to find when she first contacted me. Yet, like an oppressive dictator, you've cut her access to me, as you've probably done dozens of times to her before with her attempts to reach out for help.
'You' seem to wish her to be unwell.
> Someone of faith has obviously hurt you and I hope you have the courage to get the help you need
Mythology has hurt me an uncountable number of times. You have now made that uncountable plus 1.
I apologize for my projection of impatience and frustration. It is not a disposition I often endorse, but the urgency of your daughter's situation has forced me to appeal to you in an emotional manner most recognizable to you, in the effort to provoke the results that I believe a purely intellectual discourse would fail to manifest. Please do not interpret this as my intent to disrespect you, I am just trying to expose to you how dangerous your inaction is to your daughter.
Sincerely,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 18.259, 19.268, 20.277, 20.286, 23.334}
#278 - Climbing out of the box - June 08, 2007, 10:17 AM
Ms. Earland wrote:
> You look only at the evidence against Christianity, not to the evidence supporting it.
That's not true at all. I don't believe there is any purported evidence supporting religion that I haven't fully addressed already in the weblog. If you would care to offer some solid justification for religion that I haven't already covered, I would be willing to discuss it with you.
> Ask yourself WHY. And think outside the box.
I would ask of you the very same thing. Plus, I have already been inside your box, and found my way out.
> Feel your emotions, notice how your body reacts to different things and people. Again, search for why and look beyond earthy measures. God explains it all.
My friend, science does a fantastic job as well, with much less faith required.
> So regardless of what you believe, God is much more real than the message that you teach could even wish to be. Why would you want to bring the earth further down? Haven't we adopted enough ignorance?
No offence madam, but your perception of what I am doing (bringing the earth down) is grossly inaccurate. I want nothing but the absolute best for humanity, and that requires letting go of our fear of death that keeps us attached to fantasies of immortality. That is what I teach here, how to recognize this fear, and how to overcome it.
> If you still believe what you say, have a blast. But let others find you. Don't TRY to corrupt this planet.
My friend, I'm sincerely not trying to be curt with you but these, and the remainder of your comments, have been fully addressed already. Please refer to the common topics list on the Contact us page of BetterHuman.org for my response to your comments.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
#279 - Theory of Misevolution? - June 08, 2007, 10:21 AM
Ms. Planwing wrote:
> I was just wondering whether then you believe in evolution.
But of course. My book Meme, has very expansive coverage of that science.
> i can certainly not believe in a theory that allows evolution between species, the fact that humans have never observed this or found fossils that prove that evolution does indeed take place between species seems to show that the theory is just a theory and requires quite a bit of faith to believe.
You don't have to believe this, because this is not true. Species cannot interbreed with one another, in fact, that's what defines a 'species' from another: the fact that they 'cannot' breed with one another. The 'only' way for a new species to appear is for members of one species to have their population split up into different environments, which, after a long period of time, would allow them to evolve independently of one another until so much evolution has occurred that they become two different species (the separated populations can no longer breed with one another). To put it more simply: in order for a new species to appear, one species splits into two, never two species making a third.
The best way to think about this is to imagine a tree. Starting at the trunk, you will see as you move up the tree, that it becomes two large branches (a branch being a new species), then 4 branches, 6, 9, 14, 25, and more and more branches until you finally end at thousands and thousands of leaves. This is how life evolves, it keeps splitting into different and different species, but, like a tree doesn't have its branches 're-join' into other branches, neither do species of life 're-join' other species.
> evolutionists believe if the tderodactyl evolved into a bird where did it aquire the genetic information to make feathers: evolution requires a mutation of information allready existant in the creature, the tderodactyl to bird phenomena requires a completely new set of genetic code, an impossibilty.
I'm afraid you don't quite understand the process of evolution my friend. Evolution 'is' the introduction of new mutations by random chance. A great deal of time has passed between when the pterodactyl's ruled the skies, till now where we have the presence of modern birds. There would have been plenty of opportunity for evolution to have discovered the many small steps that would eventually turn some hairs into feathers. True, the pterodactyls may not have had any genetic information about feathers, but ancestor after ancestor would slowly have acquired this information through trial and error of the process of evolution. Evolution itself, is what gives our genetics 'new' information.
> Lastly evolution is well known for bringing about racism, the myth that different races formed at different times and that negroes are closer to our monkey "relatives". This has not helped the human "better" itself rather it has created divides in society.
I'm really happy that you are exposing all these misperceptions of evolution, because as with your previous examples, nothing could be further from the truth. The theory of evolution states that 'all' humans living today are at 'exactly' the same degree of evolution_exactly. How could it even be possible that one person could be 'more' evolved than another? If both people are alive at the same time, and since all humans share a common ancestor, then the exact same amount of time (and hence evolution) has occurred for both of them. Color of skin has absolutely no bearing on proximity to a common ancestor, or degree of evolution.
> Evolution as Darwin stated is the survival of the fittest, this would make society selfish, it's every man for himself,
This is a very tunnel-visioned view of humankind. There are a great many other instincts that humans have that are not entirely selfish, such as love, altruism, respect, communion, etc. It would be shortsighted to focus only on the selfish portion of human instincts and then condemn us entirely as selfish.
> morality is individual then what right do we have to judge another person's actions?
Morality is not individual; morality is instinctual and everyone has the same basic morality. Unfortunately, the cultural skewing of this morality can often lead to wild interpretations of what morality is, but that doesn't change what our instincts consider right or wrong. Therefore, given that morality 'is' strictly defined, it becomes realistic to be able to fairly and consistently judge another person's actions when they pursue their own selfish goals at the expense of others.
> Hitler was justified because he was merely securing his own survival
I sincerely doubt that Hitler required world domination in order to survive. His agenda was entirely tyranny (ego).
> if we believe evolution we must also believe that man has a right to do what he needs in order to survive, meaning there is no such thing as 'the possibility of a tremendous quality of life for everyone'
I disagree. The reason life is so hard for most of us is due to the persistence of false perceptions, such as beliefs in mythological creatures, or that we are not enslaved to the corporate world, etc. The effect of exposing these misperceptions will help humanity to 'clearly' see what is and isn't important, and everyone will be in agreement because our instincts are already all in agreement. The systematic elimination of all forms of tyranny (religious, economic, etc), will grant 'all' of us our fair chance to find a great quality of life. People of the distant future that live within the construct of this type of society, will look back upon us the same way we now look upon our own historical episodes of humans enslaving humans.
> Thank you for reading this e-mail, I hope you reply, I am not interested in lambasting your opinion merely in debating beliefs.
I must thank you for taking the time to write
> most prophecies that were specific enough to be considered supportive, were 'purposely' fulfilled by those with the agenda to see that the prophecies 'were' fulfilled, thereby negating the prophetic nature of them. I was just wondering where on earth did you get this idea from? Where is your evidence to support this?
It's quite simple, the prophecies were taught to believers back then, just as prophecies are being taught to believers today. All it takes is for one believer to decide, 'I'm going to make this particular prophecy come true', and then go out and do whatever it is. This is not a prophecy, it is nothing more than fulfilling a request that someone else made in the past. A prophecy implies divine intervention, not human intervention.
To draw a counter-example, if a prophecy states that an asteroid will strike at a certain time or place, well, that can't possibly have human intervention, and thus if it really does occur, then that will be a genuine non-human-intervened prophecy fulfilled. This has never happened, and I welcome any evidence you have to the contrary.
> And also the fact that your arguments can't be deemed to be conclusive because your opinion is biased. How would anyone who comes on your site be persuaded by your arguments against the Bible, a biased opinion is not an opinion at all, the fact that you made it so clear in your introduction that you are against religion makes people disregard your arguments.
Not sure how you drew that conclusion. I've had many religious people explore my website and found themselves questioning their faith. True, there are many people that are repulsed by its content, but there's not much I can do about that. It's no more possible for me to give an unbiased perspective of religion, than you can of the validity of the Easter Bunny. Do you think you could sincerely tell someone that the Easter Bunny may exist? Does your inability to be unbiased in this matter invalidate your opinion of the non-existence of the Easter Bunny?
> Also nothing inaminate can make something animate so the being that made life must be animate - that is one of the key principles to science -
My good friend, please read my book Meme (you can freely download it from the Literature page), and you will come to understand how energy can create life from inanimate matter.
> I have read many books by scientists on intelligent design, books by jonathan sarfati among others, it is true that some are christian's but then I have read books by people who have come to the standpoint on scientific grounds only, realising that evolution contradicts itself and some things cannot evolve over a million years. Why evolve a heart if you have no veins yet? Why evolve veins if your blood has not evolved yet? For these things to co-exist and work in harmony they must "evolve" in one moment altogether, at once. Evolution does not claim this and only gives a rather vague assumption - "A few billion years ago a piece of bacteria began to evolve, a few billion years later here we are" not very scientific & not very believable.
My good friend, everything you have just written is completely incorrect. The theory of evolution does 'not' state anything like the above. Again, please read my book Meme to gain a much better understanding of the process of evolution. It is nothing like you understand it.
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
#280 - Lots of love... - June 08, 2007, 10:28 AM
Mr. Rugmodel wrote:
> u say there is no God. i call u a fool. so does God
Feel free to vent on me my friend, I will not retaliate. I'm 'turning the other cheek' as I believe your religion would teach.
> but i want u to explain this, snaped finger.... prayed 3 min later abck straight and normal, no pain fixed!
You didn't break your finger, you just dislocated it out of joint. A mildly dislocated finger can quite easily pop back into its socket, where it would feel quite normal once again.
Hope I've been helpful,
Sean Sinjin
#281 - Proof of god? - June 08, 2007, 10:31 AM
Mr. Backear wrote:
> Its funny because I was thinking about this with some freinds the other day and we stumbled across a semi-logical proof for the exsitence of God/Higher intelligence. The theory works on the principle of microcosm and macrocosm on the level of relative parity. You can see how it progresses. From simple organized structures to complex organized structures to uber-complex superstructures. The intelligence or conciousness factor comes in on a combined "unconciousness of the elements of any given "ecosystem". The example that we used was the group consiousness that develops in human crowds, the herd mentality, or the principle of collective mind/unconsciouness. The progression is that in sentient and non-sentient beings a like there is a tendency to develop a form of super conciousness that will dictate the reactions of the group as a whole. This super-consiousness can be viewed as a higher form of intelligence. When we consider the fact that the super-consiousness may involve not only sentient and non-sentient warm and cold blodded creatures but plants, stones and perhaps even planets and stars we arrive at the conclusion the super consiousness is the combined projection of all forms of life (both revcognizable and unrecognizable to the human species) and is therefore all encompassing, all knowing and in all probability is the most likely point from which an actualized and self-aware form of super consiousness would deveop.
It's a very keen observation of yours that 'consciousness' is the product of smaller entities, like our brain's neurons combine in effort to produce our consciousness, or that humans can produce an abstract 'collective' consciousness. However, the rest of your theory of higher intelligences breaks down. Let me explain:
Let's first really understand what it means when we say 'conscious'. To be conscious, means that we are 'aware', or more fundamentally, we can perceive 'things' (e.g., our presence) and can generate 'thoughts'. Without the ability to perceive or think, we cannot be conscious, therefore, let's consider these to be the most basic requirements for consciousness. This more simplistic definition of consciousness will help me to draw out the line between conscious systems, and unconscious systems.
Let's now consider a river. We all know that a river is simply water moving from a high ground to a low ground, following a path that was cut by prior waterflow. This is an example of energy flow, and of organization, but not of perceiving or thinking. True the water 'reacts' to the path of the river, but it didn't formulate that reaction, it was forced into that reaction. Therefore, as I'm sure you'll agree, the river is not conscious.
Let's look at single cell now. Very tightly organized, it does indeed sense its environment, and through millions of years of evolution, it has developed simplistic reactions to a wide myriad of environmental conditions. It might be safe to say that a cell has the most primitive type of consciousness imaginable because its reactions are purposely beneficial to it, not just imposed upon it.
Then there are animals, which we are pretty certain are conscious in the contemporary sense. And on up to us humans, which form the de facto standard for the definition of consciousness. Then to your example of the abstract consciousness of all humans working together (I call this the H-Freak in my book Meme). You might even be able to extend this reach to consider a 'city' to be a form of consciousness (buoyed by the human constituents). And the final level that I can think of would be global commerce, trade, politics, etc. All of these examples can theoretically be said to 'perceive' and 'think'.
But that's it. There is no higher consciousness because that is the highest point of abstraction that we are responsible for. Why? Because there is nothing more abstract than that which can perceive or think. The planets whirring around in our solar system may be an orderly system that conducts energy, but like our river example, it does this passively, without the ability to perceive or adapt to their environment. If a planet is heading into another planet, those planets will not be able to perceive or avoid their demise. Going to an even larger scale, galaxies are completely oblivious to their own existences or destinies. I suppose one could leverage super-symmetry to justify galaxies playing the role of atoms in a hyper-universe, but that has no justification beyond science-fiction.
Consciousness is a very special form of order, and it 'always' depends upon lower forms of precise mechanisms working in unison in order to manifest, just as the consciousness of our cities depends upon humans, and human consciousness depends upon our cells, and cells consciousness depend upon the discrete evolved arrangement of atomic particles that grant it the ability to purposefully react to environmental conditions.
This isn't to say that consciousness must be atomically constituted (e.g. computers are a form of intelligence that isn't arranged down to the atom), but it is to say that (statistically speaking) consciousness can only 'stem' from something that 'is' atomically constituted to support intelligence (e.g. 'we' built the computers), therefore consciousness at any level does not naturally form in the universe without an inherent atomic level of organization being responsible for its existence.
Nothing in the universe (other than life itself, or the things created by life), has been systematically constructed with a purpose. The universe is only a 'passive' system, spinning and whirring aimlessly about, imbued with much energy flow imparted from the Big Bang, yet, oblivious to its own existence, and incapable of formulating any kind of response; it is unconscious (though some argue that life itself is the consciousness of the universe, which doesn't contradict my diatribe here, but is an interesting interpretation).
Don't be fooled by the scale of energized systems, my friend, the mere presence of a system bigger than us, doesn't grant it the organization required to qualify for consciousness. The universe is nothing more than a giant river.
Having said all of this, I would like to point out that all is not lost with your concept, as long as you accept that this ever-increasing consciousness must always be rooted by some atomically organized consciousness, meaning that we humans are forming a link in an ever-evolving chain of higher and higher consciousnesses. Some day we will create machines that can create their own machines, and once that has happened, we will have lost our role as the top dog in intelligence. Machines are destined to take over and organize the entirety of the universe, and they will eventually form the collective and incomprehensibly massive intelligence you speak of.
Please have a read of my book Meme. It discusses this very concept of the 'Ultimate Machine'
Thanks for writing,
Sean Sinjin
#282 - Following words of wisdom - June 08, 2007, 10:37 AM
Mr. Downlight wrote back:
> I hint at reductionism in your ideas as meaning I see you as wanting or tending to take the bare bones scientific method, eternally limited to incomplete factual knowledge and understanding and continuously subject to revision and upgrading, as if it were absolute knowledge.
I am a strong advocate of Occam's razor, but I would be hesitant to interpret that as promoting an overly-simplistic model of the universe, or especially the impossible concept of absolute knowledge. The basic design of the Scientific Method is to preclude the notion of absolute knowledge altogether; the two concepts are the antithesis of each other. The Scientific Method is nothing more than a probability mechanism that allows one to assess probabilities associated with a hypothesis' validity, that's all. No facts can surface from that. What the Scientific Method does for us that no other mechanism can, is to preclude fantasy from fact, wishful thinking from the shortcomings of reality. We can only operate from the information granted us and nothing organizes it better than the Scientific Method. This, of course, does not mean it is infallible, but by design, it should statistically be the least fallible.
> The point to this, as I take it, is to "not accept other's authority over your own", even his, (Buddha's) which to me seems a remarkably admirable thing for a teacher to say, though you won't budge enough to give him even a little credit for it.
I strongly disagree with the notion that we should always consider ourselves to be the ultimate authority. Most people need guidance that may not always be palatable to them. If left to their own devices, well, we'd still be living like cavepeople; but, with the concept of authority, we allow for the enacting of laws, education, society, etc. to evolve. The ability to override another's counter-constructive ideals is paramount to our intellectual evolution as a species. To poetically discharge the effectiveness of authority in some misguided pursuit of liberty, blindly overlooks the fundamental role of authority needed to attain liberty.
Also, forgive me for being skeptical to the number of wisdoms 'actually' uttered by Buddha himself. More likely, his name is more of a euphemistic repository for seemingly wise sayings. Pythagoras is also an example of a man granted much undue credit for many mathematical concepts he 'supposedly' created (even posthumously). Such is the inaccurate and fantastical nature of human history.
> This (Buddha's saying) does not mean to consider one's self the endall of truth and understanding.
I disagree because that is 'precisely' what this saying suggests. It directly translates to: 'You' have the final say on the accuracy of anything and everything. There are no caveats in his saying that remedy this absolute. I'm sure you'll agree that self-assessment is a very unreliable way of ascertaining the credibility of evidence, therefore it renders this statement rather unwise.
> I've been trying to get you to consider the possibility that some of the "mystics" might have hit upon some interesting ideas, possibly relevant to "the quest."
Mystics (or philosophers) are usually revered for their ability to abstract, reproject, and expose what most people tend to overlook. This should 'not', however, automatically grant them credibility, despite notoriety. Credibility must come from only one source, and that is the Scientific Method, because that is exactly what it is designed to seek. The 'quest' as you've coined it, I interpret to mean the search for purpose and understanding, and I do agree that philosophers tend to be the first to foray into these unknown regions. My hesitation to indulge the notion that we should blindly follow philosophers as they plunge forth has to do with the inherent erratic nature of people, more than the memes. It doesn't matter which philosopher (scientist, leader, etc.) generated which meme, all those ideas still have to be ran through the Scientific Method independently. Therefore, it makes no sense to follow Buddha (or anybody), it only makes sense to follow whichever of their sayings have merit, as only the Scientific Method can identify.
> You do not discuss the idea that though energy is "no thing," just tension in bether, it is nevertheless considered equivalent to "mass," which I believe you consider a " thing."
'Mass' is 'potential energy' (E=mc2) in that if a particle meets up with its anti-particle, they will annihilate each other and release their combined energies, but this isn't the same as saying that mass 'is' energy. That would be the same as stating that a compressed spring 'is' motion. No, the spring can 'produce' motion, but the spring is not motion itself.
Great email,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 15.197, 15.198, 15.200, 17.245, 18.249, 18.252, 19.270, 19.275, 20.282, 21.292, 21.302, 22.313, 23.328, 23.338}
#283 - Kudos - June 08, 2007, 10:39 AM
Mr. Redblink wrote:
> I just want to compliment you on the amazing compilation of un-biased knowledge on your website. The views/ideas/sentiments expressed on your website let me know that there are others out there who feel as I do, that the human experience is meant to be lived without the confining closed-mindedness of religion. Thanks again for doing such an amazing job, your hard work shows clearly.
Thank you for the kind words, my friend. Always great to make new connections through the void. Please feel free to volunteer any comments or questions.
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
#284 - Absurdities - June 08, 2007, 10:42 AM
Mr. Perfcap wrote:
> Bravo!!!! It was such a relief to find a link to your website after reading the depressing news about the grand opening of the Creationism Museum. Such idiocy tends to weaken my faith in humanity and your website gives me hope.
I did hear about that museum opening and I can't imagine a more blatant disregard for the ideals of science. What an interesting manifestation of the religious meme-virus this is; literally 'stealing' from the allures of the scientific world and blaspheming them into some perverse contortion of reality mixed with fantasy, a most impossible mixing of humans and dinosaurs. The fact that this isn't illegal is a sad reflection of the current state of our governing bodies to foster and enforce meaningful education standards.
> Keep up the good work. I do my part as often as possible challenging religious dogma at every opportunity with as much tact as I can muster. "Heaven" help us all.
Indeed. I'm glad to hear you find value in approaching this goal with tact. I know firsthand how frustrating it is to deal with the religious mindset so take pride in the fact that you can surpass your instinctual reactions and instead find an intellectual means to subdue the persistence of 'blind' faith.
Your friend,
Sean Sinjin
#285 - Where do we attach the horse? - June 08, 2007, 10:44 AM
Mr. Quiltup wrote back:
> From the looks of things on the site, I can see that you have been busy. Keep up the nice work.
Thank you my friend.
> Apparently we seem to be embedded in some relativistic time soup, and that our brains actually assist in precluding a predeterministic future by means of some quantum activity on a neuronal level which alters time-space based on mere observation.
This, I believe, is absolutely incorrect. You are fundamentally describing 'free-will', which doesn't exist, any more than the implied randomness does. I have many articles in the weblog describing the absence of free-will and randomness if you're interested in following up.
> On a philosophical level, I have observed that nurture and care have positive effects on all living things, from plants to people. So, there is some evidence of a 'good', at least in my mind.
Good is a 'human' term applied to things that are morally congruent, which in turn is instinctually congruent. 'Good' actions simply provide a pleasurable sensation in the brain, and that's what defines them as good. From the perspective of the universe however, there are no such things as good or bad, only androgynous actions and consequences.
> These thoughts have prevented me from completely discarding my notions of the existence of a "God", if you will, for some years.
Well then, I must ask you, why does the presence (or interpretation) of 'good' necessarily predicate the existence of a god? How does this make logical sense? And how would it make any less sense to say that the presence of 'good' implies the existence of the Tooth Fairy? You see, you've fallen into the trap of propaganda-driven associations that were fed to you from a very young age, stating 'good' comes from 'God'. This is your 'only' justification for making your assumptions. What you need to consider is the notion that Mother Nature is responsible for evolving the instinctual understanding of 'good' because it helps us to survive as a communal species. Break the 'programming' in your mind that gives mythology undue credit for the concept of good.
> The first link is a video found on Youtube; it introduces, in a very broad survey-style fashion the general ideas that some scholars have considered:
{Click to watch: Intelligent Design}
Thank you for this Intelligent Design link, it was quite amazing. I'm intrigued at the depth of baseless assumptions that were made, and the wide diversity of psychological traps that were employed, in the attempt to draw the viewer's compliance. Many references to established scientific minds, beautiful and scientifically-oriented imagery, the usage of scientific nomenclature to appear authoritative (often using science-fiction terminology: multiverses? Quantum fluctuations?), ostracizing tactics (millions have witnessed beyond reality..), and the age-old primary mistake of Intelligent Design: the assumption that the universe is custom-tailored for us.
My friend, all the buzzwords in the world are not going to add one iota of credibility to Intelligent Design. No scientists, no pretty videos, and no misguided extrapolations of how complexity came to be in the universe, can justify an intelligent creator. The entire cornerstone of the Intelligent Design argument is that the universe seems 'too perfect' of a fit for life, but what this argument fails to comprehend is that if the universe had a different composition, with different forces (weaker gravity, different particles, etc.), then 'life' would have evolved in a completely different way to match. People that believe the universe is an uncanny 'perfect' match for life, are putting the cart before the horse. This universe is what 'defined' life. We didn't come along billions of years after the Big Bang and just magically fit into the universe. We evolved 'from' it, which is why we match it so perfectly.
> The next link is a blog site that list some book titles, including God's Universe, by Harvard professor of astronomy and historian of science Owen Gingerich.:
http://haisch.wordpress.com/
This article demonstrates the author's lack of understanding of evolution. Again, life evolved 'from' this universe, which explains why life so perfectly matches it. That is the mechanism of evolution, that each generation improves upon the last, becoming an increasingly better fit for its environment.
Thanks for your submissions,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 16.215, 20.285}
#286 - Powerless prayer - June 08, 2007, 10:51 AM
Hello again my poor lost friend,
Let me begin by wholeheartedly apologizing for my persistence in this matter. I know I bring you frustration and adversity, and this is the last thing I wish to do. If it wasn't for my sense of duty toward your daughter to respond to her subconscious reach for help, I would've withdrawn from our conversation. But, this is much bigger than you or I, and I beg for your forgiveness in continuing to appeal to you as I have been.
Ms. Canegive wrote back:
> probably becuase she was not seeking your help but trying to help you.
Your daughter's letter began in great detail about her prior self-mutilating and suicidal inclinations, and then stated:
"..thier pastor spoke this real, and empowering sermon and i vowed to never harm myself again...the sermon was about how god deals with our "enemies" and how even though he lets it look as though they have won...the time up until he acts is just a test of faith"
So you see, it's her belief that her 'enemies' will be punished by your mythological creature that has given her a false sense of hope. True, she may have been attempting to share her perspective with me, but what I'm afraid will happen is that when she grows frustrated at the lack of progress of ethereal revenge against her enemies, she will lose her faith, and find herself once again spiraling into hopelessness. She is not 'cured', she is temporarily 'sedated', and I stress__temporarily.
> You have a mythology of your own but just define it differently.
No madam, your uneducated understanding of our scientific perspective does not render it mythological.
> You are a religious zealot trying to sell and profit from your lies.
There are quite a few things wrong with this statement. I am not religious, though I am passionate about liberating people from fantasy. I do not monetarily profit whatsoever from my work, in fact I have spent a considerable amount of my own money to sustain BetterHuman.org. Everything I have to offer is free. And finally, no lies; just theories, science, and logic.
My friend, you simply do not understand me, my perspective, or my mission whatsoever. You just choose to cast me in whatever evil light you wish, with total disregard for how factual your assessment may be. In other words, you do not care about me, you just hate and condemn that which you don't understand.
> Love - what would you know of love. God is love..in your world there could be no love.,
Excellent question. We define 'love' differently. Your definition of love means to focus all your energy into manipulating your god so you can get to your beloved immortality. This means you will jeopardize your life, jeopardize other's lives (your daughter), and treat others with profound prejudice; all in the pursuit of your faith narcotic. Whereas, the BetterHuman.org definition of 'love' is encapsulated by our tenets that together provide the greatest degree possible of happiness for everyone. Please give them a read so that you might understand what love for oneself, and for others, really consists of.
> there you are an accident of nature and a bunch of chemicals hanging together.
My friend, you too are nothing more than a bunch of chemicals hanging together, no matter what you may believe to be otherwise.
> You have a god, you just dont know it.
Up until I was in my early teens, I did believe in your god. In fact, I was quite religious and fought to maintain my faith at all costs. But, as I matured, and my ability to detect fraud and fantasy improved, I was finally able to recognize that religion was nothing more than a very ancient pyramid scheme that preys upon the desperate and afraid. I chose not to be a victim any longer. Once I was free of religion, I pursued 'reality', and eventually found it. My book, Meme, is the result of that journey.
There is no such thing as God madam, just like there's no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or unicorns. Your fear of death, and fear of life, allows you to overlook this obvious deception, and instead willingly submit yourself to a lifetime of blind servitude to nothing. You believe you are trying to avoid hell, but you are living in your self-imposed hell right now.
> You worship your own ideas fed to you from a spiritual origin and guided by a demon who is very happy with the work you are doing but he and you are destined for destruction.
I'm sure you believe this, but in reality there are no such things as demons, or spirits, or gods, or witches, or Easter Bunnies, or Santa Claus, etc. etc. It's all fantasy. You are in a very deep dream, my friend.
> The only difference is you have a chance to accept a free gift of salvation from a God who loves you even though you are hurting Him. It is your choice.
There is nothing free about your gift of salvation. It's a lifetime of servitude to an entity that doesn't exist, and whatever monetary resources you can cough up to the religious establishments. It's all a very huge con to take your money. Please at least consider this possibility. Don't be so blind as to accept all their mantra without question. They are just stealing from you, and wasting your precious life.
> I am praying for your enlightenment to the creator God who loves you and is knocking at the door of your life and He will enter, you only have to open the door.
As stated before, you don't care about me; I'm just a lying zealot remember? You already believe I'm going to hell, so the above 'best intentions' are really nothing more than self-serving utterances to try to impress your god. If even I can see your insincerity, wouldn't also your ethereal entity?
Now, all your insincere gestures for me aside, you are purposely changing the focus of our conversation away from your daughter in order to try pushing me away. I will accept that you dislike me, I will also accept that you will not remit on your faith. What you do need to do however, is address your daughter's suffering before she hurts herself again. I know you're scared of what may be wrong with her, I am too, so please get her to some help. Don't take chances with her life and just 'pray' that her problems go away.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 18.259, 19.268, 20.277, 20.286, 23.334}
#287 - Uncreated - June 08, 2007, 10:53 AM
Mr. Irklime wrote back:
> i don't think that everything should be subject to scientific evaluation and proof though... because some things just aren't within the scope of science.
Incorrect. There is nothing that does not fit within the realm of science, because science by definition, is the discipline that attempts to understand everything. Currently, science is incomplete and cannot explain everything, which is mostly due to the missing pieces that we don't yet have, but we are acquiring those pieces virtually every moment that passes, and, like a giant jigsaw puzzle, we are completing the picture of the universe and explaining all the observations within it. With enough time we should be able to draw a very complete picture of the universe, without the need for gods to explain missing elements.
> now about your point about uncreated aliens, that's equivalent to a belief system like that of the ancient egyptians, ancient greeks, or the hindhus, there there is a pantheon of gods rather than just one God. if we can agree that the universe could not have just created itself and that there must be someone/s or something/s that created it, then we can pursue this question further.
I do not agree. My example of the uncreated aliens was for the purpose of providing equally viable explanations that parallel the validity of your god theory. The intent was to force you to recognize that 'God' wasn't the only possible answer, even by your understanding. So, by introducing new, illogical, redundant, and obviously fantastical alternatives into your understanding, I'm actually forcing you to consider the parameters that you so easily overlook when you focus solely on the God solution, and the most significant parameter that is overlooked is 'who created God'; to which the automatic reply is 'uncreated'. Uncreated is a very convenient paradoxical concept, but the truth is, it is just a made-up trait; like Hercules supposedly had incredible strength. Hercules, however, didn't have great strength. Why? Because Hercules never existed.
Assigning a convenient attribute to something in order to make it 'fit', is merely adding fantasy to fantasy. Dragons can fly, Unicorns have horns, Santa Claus could deliver presents to everyone in the world in one night, God always existed, etc. It's all fantasy, completely bereft of the Scientific Method.
So again, I do not agree that the universe must have been created by something of a conscious nature, if only for the sole reason that 'something' would then have had to create 'it' because it is senseless to say that something is 'uncreated'. Still, I won't argue against that somewhere down the long chain of creations, was the first 'thing', and I believe that first thing was a simple substance called 'bether' in compressed form, with no ability to be conscious because it was nothing more than a simple (albeit giant) particle. There was no complexity at the beginning, and since the time of the Big Bang, organized complexity in the universe has steadily increased (life, intelligence, etc.), and continues to increase. To say that something so complex as an 'intelligence' started everything is (once again) 'putting the cart before the horse'.
> your observations about religion being abused to give power and riches to ppl who shouldn't have it is unfortunately true in some cases. but then again there are churches and religious groups who use their funds well to give humanitarian aid and help the poor, orphans, and etc. so i guess it's not all bad.
You must not overlook the bad by focusing on the good. This distraction technique is how religion has escaped being exposed for the obvious tyranny it is for so long, by providing a dog-and-pony-show of piety to the masses. Your rose-colored perception of the churches fails to recognize the closed-book accounting practices, the ages-old tax-shelter, and flatulent spending practices that focus on recruitment (monolithic multi-million dollar churches, advertising campaigns, etc.). How does any of that help the 'people'?
Please, don't confuse a church for a charity; it is a 'business' that capitalizes upon the ignorance and desires of the masses. Very little of what a church receives as donations is actually applied to a 'humanitarian' function.
{All letters from this contributor: 15.197, 15.198, 15.200, 17.245, 18.249, 18.252, 19.270, 19.275, 20.282, 21.292, 21.302, 22.313, 23.328, 23.338}
{All letters from this contributor: 16.215, 20.285}
{All letters from this contributor: 18.259, 19.268, 20.277, 20.286, 23.334}
{All letters from this contributor: 18.258, 19.272, 20.287}